SH International is still a far better aircraft in the Indian context than the Rafale. For the same amount being spent on the Rafale in a pure FMS with 50% offsets, we can easily get 70 Super Hornets in less than 5 years with all the upgrades being offered including F414EPE, large panel displays, proven AESA, IRST, CFTs, stealth pods, new gen MAWS. All the while we would save couple of billion over LCA and SH' life cycle on engine commonality alone. Nice large panel display.

The F-35 replaces the original Hornet, the F-35 and SH are supposed to serve side-by-side for years to come.

Irrelevant as far as its Indian prospects and further production in general, is concerned*. I would have thought that was obvious from the context.

Your point?

One is a cheap MiG-21/27 replacement for basic roles. The other is a (relatively) cost effective option for high-end tasks (esp. in heavily contested air space). They have little in common. The SH meanwhile meets neither criteria. Fact remains, the SH's day is past and only political machinations have kept the plug from being pulled on it.

*If the F-35 had been available to it, even Kuwait wouldn't have looked twice at the SH.

The F-35 replaces the original Hornet, the F-35 and SH are supposed to serve side-by-side for years to come.

Irrelevant as far as its Indian prospects and further production in general, is concerned*. I would have thought that was obvious from the context.

It's perfectly relevant because it will remain supported and updated for years to come.

Viv S wrote:One is a cheap MiG-21/27 replacement for basic roles. The other is a (relatively) cost effective option for high-end tasks (esp. in heavily contested air space). They have little in common. The SH meanwhile meets neither criteria.

Or you could say it meets both. It is more affordable than the F-35 and more capable than the LCA.

Viv S wrote: Fact remains, the SH's day is past and only political machinations have kept the plug from being pulled on it.

The same could be said for the Rafale or the LCA.

Viv S wrote: *If the F-35 had been available to it, even Kuwait wouldn't have looked twice at the SH.

Irrelevant to Indian situation. Kuwait has spare money that India does not have and much smaller fleet needs.

GeorgeWelch wrote:It's perfectly relevant because it will remain supported and updated for years to come.

Or you could say it meets both. It is more affordable than the F-35 and more capable than the LCA.

The same could be said for the Rafale or the LCA.

Nobody in their right mind would opt for the SH over the F-35.

It'll only be marginally cheaper than F-35 as US orders taper off and economies of scale are lost, with nobody to fund aspirational new variants. And the F-35A remains a far far more capable aircraft in every conceivable way.

No 'the same' can not be said about the Rafale & Tejas because the requirements for two in their home markets are nowhere near complete, unlike the USN which wants no more new SHs.

Irrelevant to Indian situation. Kuwait has spare money that India does not have and much smaller fleet needs.

Given the lack of 'spare money' in India, it'd be lunacy to spend it on an aircraft delivering no new capability to the IAF, unlike the F-35. The Kuwaitis too would have preferred to spend their 'spare money' on the F-35 instead (had it been available).

Viv S wrote:No 'the same' can not be said about the Rafale & Tejas because the requirements for two in their home markets are nowhere near complete, unlike the USN which wants no more new SHs.

New orders don't matter. If you order SH or Rafale or whatever now, who cares if there's a new version 10 years from now?

What matters is upgrades to your existing fleet. And in that regard, the USN SH fleet is far larger and far better funded than either the Rafale or LCA, ensuring upgrades will be more timely and more affordable.

Viv S wrote:Given the 'lack of spare money', it'd be lunacy to spend it on an aircraft delivering no new capability to the IAF, unlike the F-35.

And what new capability does the LCA deliver? Or additional MKI?

The 'new capability' it delivers is numbers, numbers that have been severely declining.

(Even ignoring the fact that it delivers a tremendous range of new weaponry and different EW/ECM capabilities. There is something to be said for avoiding a monoculture.)

Pentagon leaders are pushing hard to keep up the momentum of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Many in the Navy, though, still look longingly back at the Boeing-built F-18 Hornet

. . .

The Navy has long been ambivalent about the F-35C. “They’re under a lot of pressure from OSD to fall in line on F-35C and they’ll certainly get some,” aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia told me, “[but] given the price differential between current year F-35s and Super Hornets, and their reluctance to lose their only all-Navy plane, there’s a strong attraction for keeping the [St. Louis] line going as long as possible.

. . .

The Navy likes this two-pronged, two-plane approach. Unlike the Air Force, which has bet everything on the F-35’s ability to do both physical and electronic attacks, the Navy prefers to keep building specialized fighters like the Super Hornet and specialized jammers like the Growler.

A formation made purely of F-35s may be able to protect itself electronically, Greenert said, but that doesn’t mean F-35s can adequately protect other aircraft. While the Air Force believes the F-35’s combination of stealth and electronic warfare capability are superior to the Growler for the first days of a major war, the Navy thinks that such a high-intensity, high-tech fight is precisely where dedicated jamming aircraft will be most needed.

“When [F-35] goes out unto itself…they’re fine on electronic attack,” Greenert told reporters after today’s hearing. “When they gather together in a package” — that is, multiple types of aircraft, stealthy and unstealthy, operating together — and you need broader electronic warfare/electronic attack/suppression, then… the pods on the Growlers, they can expand that beyond what an individual F-35 will do.”

Viv S wrote:Given the lack of 'spare money' in India, it'd be lunacy to spend it on an aircraft delivering no new capability to the IAF

One other point I'd like to make on this is that it does deliver a tremendous new capability to the IAF: US logistical support. You suddenly need 1000 more missiles or your 3-year spare depot is now looking like a 3-week spare depot? No one else can push the quantity of needed supplies through like the US.

New orders don't matter. If you order SH or Rafale or whatever now, who cares if there's a new version 10 years from now?

What matters is upgrades to your existing fleet. And in that regard, the USN SH fleet is far larger and far better funded than either the Rafale or LCA, ensuring upgrades will be more timely and more affordable.

And what new capability does the LCA deliver? Or additional MKI?

The 'new capability' it delivers is numbers, numbers that have been severely declining.

(Even ignoring the fact that it delivers a tremendous range of new weaponry and different EW/ECM capabilities. There is something to be said for avoiding a monoculture.)

New Delhi | Saturday, Sep 12 2015 ISTThe 36 Rafale fighters which the Modi Government had decided to purchase off the shelf from France, may take some more time to fly into the country despite the Defence Ministry giving a go ahead to the Defence Acquisition Committee to expedite the negotiations.

''There are still so many nitty gritties of the deal which needed to be sorted out, so no timeline could be given,'' sources in the French Embassy said here today.

That was the reason that the proposed stopover-visit of the Defence Minister of France was shelved at the last moment as the stage that would require his presence had not been reached yet.

According to sources, it is the offset clause over which the French are feeling uncomfortable

Under the off-set policy, first introduced as part of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) of 2005, a foreign company has to invest back a part of the deal into India.

But the 50 per cent offset clause was part of the now scrapped tender for 126 Multirole Combat Aircraft, most of which were to be built in India by Hindustan Aeronautics.

However, the negotiations could not make much progress due to the differences over transfer of technology and price issues, which finally led the Government to go in for purchase of a smaller scale.

The decision to buy off the shelf was taken as a take away of Prime Minister Narendra Modi'svisit to France in April this year. Moreover, the India Air Force was in dire need of these aircraft as its strength had been depleting over the years with older aircraft being grounded without the new coming to replace them.

If I were an IAF chief, I would grab anything that comes to my way. Even if they give me only 36 Rafeals or 36 Mig29s or 36 brand new Mig 21s.

36 of any flying machine is better than no flying machine to serve/save my country.

I don't quite see that way. The IAF and indeed all services were starved of funds from the the 1980s to the late 1990s. ~ 2000, the IAF wanted 126 M2Ks to replace a doddering MiG fleet whose inadequacies were exposed in Kargil. 7 years later they got the MMRCA bake-off and eight years later it dissolved with a stupid 36 Rafales on a G2G basis to avoid penalties.

It is not the IAF's fault that stop and go modernization has ballooned costs. Most rational nations (we are not one) have a ten-15 year planning horizon and fund accordingly. We have a Bollywood naachne/gaane approach at the MoD level that requires the latest/bestest/ X-fighter that moves the requirements goalposts and the unit cost each year we delay. So now we are down to pleading for a Rafale that will cost us $300MM/ac while the threat is 300 $1MM cruise missiles from the chinese. The math does not work.

But IAF is duty bound to protect the national interests, with or without Rafeals.

In their narrow mindedness of saving few pilot's lives (assuming that enemies will down few LCAs but not Rafales), IAF will be responsible for deaths of tens of thousands (or millions) of Indians if/when war comes.

Given our secularism, it is always our enemy who will choose the timing of next war.

You cannot keep your promise of not being an obnoxious troll, despite being banned multiple times. Banned Permanently - Admin

Pentagon leaders are pushing hard to keep up the momentum of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Many in the Navy, though, still look longingly back at the Boeing-built F-18 Hornet

. . .

The Navy has long been ambivalent about the F-35C. “They’re under a lot of pressure from OSD to fall in line on F-35C and they’ll certainly get some,” aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia told me, “[but] given the price differential between current year F-35s and Super Hornets, and their reluctance to lose their only all-Navy plane, there’s a strong attraction for keeping the [St. Louis] line going as long as possible.

. . .

The Navy likes this two-pronged, two-plane approach. Unlike the Air Force, which has bet everything on the F-35’s ability to do both physical and electronic attacks, the Navy prefers to keep building specialized fighters like the Super Hornet and specialized jammers like the Growler.

A formation made purely of F-35s may be able to protect itself electronically, Greenert said, but that doesn’t mean F-35s can adequately protect other aircraft. While the Air Force believes the F-35’s combination of stealth and electronic warfare capability are superior to the Growler for the first days of a major war, the Navy thinks that such a high-intensity, high-tech fight is precisely where dedicated jamming aircraft will be most needed.

“When [F-35] goes out unto itself…they’re fine on electronic attack,” Greenert told reporters after today’s hearing. “When they gather together in a package” — that is, multiple types of aircraft, stealthy and unstealthy, operating together — and you need broader electronic warfare/electronic attack/suppression, then… the pods on the Growlers, they can expand that beyond what an individual F-35 will do.”

Viv S wrote:Given the lack of 'spare money' in India, it'd be lunacy to spend it on an aircraft delivering no new capability to the IAF

One other point I'd like to make on this is that it does deliver a tremendous new capability to the IAF: US logistical support. You suddenly need 1000 more missiles or your 3-year spare depot is now looking like a 3-week spare depot? No one else can push the quantity of needed supplies through like the US.

Yes. But the state of our relations today means that, in case of war with China, the US will not suddenly push through those supplies. The US trades far more with China than it does with us, and China is more important to their economy than ours is.

And hence, it makes sense to buy planes from a country that WILL transact with us in times of war, for money, rather than one that will put up a resolution to be passed on capitol hill.

But IAF is duty bound to protect the national interests, with or without Rafeals.

In their narrow mindedness of saving few pilot's lives (assuming that enemies will down few LCAs but not Rafales), IAF will be responsible for deaths of tens of thousands (or millions) of Indians if/when war comes.

Given our secularism, it is always our enemy who will choose the timing of next war.

Your point is that in case of enemy action - Rafale will be safer for pilots than LCA. You are wrong. By a long distance.

By itself, the Rafale and the LCA are equally safe or unsafe and the pilots safety will depend on training, tactics and situational dominance achieved by either of the two parties.

By itself the Rafale brings capabilities which will put pilots at a greater risk than LCA. The Rafale will go farther away, deeper in enemy territory and hence encounter greater threat than any LCA pilot is likely to face. But it does not mean the Rafale pilot is courting more danger either. Danger to life is not a function of just your aircraft. Air action on enemy territory or friendly will involve on most occasions other assets and their capabilities too - like AWACS, EW fighters, Air Superiority fighters and numerous other platforms in the same battlespace. Survivability will be enhanced by increasing potential of assets in battle space and not just one better type of aircraft.

So if the airspace is in range of Tejas, supported with better Indian platforms like support from AWACS, etc, the Tejas is as likely to keep the pilot safe as Rafale. What Tejas will not do is go as far out as Rafale. And that far out Indian assets available to dominate battlespace reduce - so who will court greater risk?

By all accounts for its class and the range within which the LCA will operate, it will hold up against the best. It will get better too.

Now, over the '65 war, '71 war, '99 conflict and numerous crashes and deaths in peace time one thing is clear that IAF trains and operates to extremes putting its pilots to harms way at all times. IAF as a service is in a situation that in 99% situations its combatants will be pilots unlike IN or IA. Pilots have to be saved from stupid deaths like bike accidents because that is a waste. Pilot safety is important in buying decision to ensure it has ejection seat on a fighter. Other than that the IAF or any other Air Force buys capability for the money it has. If pilot safety was a priority, IAF would have junked Mig 21 in what - 1991? I don't know, maybe earlier?

Rafale is the result of MMRCA and IAF did not know it would be RAFALE the day this tender was floated. Almost a decade later it desperately wants the aircraft which resulted from a long drawn out process. An LCA can only come when it will be made. In 1994, I went for my medical prior to joining NDA and a doctor at Camero Mess said that my generation will be lucky because by the time we fly we will have Indian made LCAs. I started flying in 1997. I am still telling my eight year old today that those young boys in NDA today are lucky that they will have LCA to fly. You have no idea what LCA has meant to us in the IAF and how we wait.

I do not support Rafale because in my view the MMRCA is flawed as it was evident to the framers of ASQRs of MMRCA that the Su 30 MKI could easily do what MMRCA could. The QR's were limited to 30 tons to keep the 'heavies' like Su 30 out of contention. See the StratPost videos posted about an year ago.

Your "narrow mindedness" Sir, in calling "pilot safety" a reason for purchase of Rafale over LCA shows lack of understanding.

The IAF,services are duty bound to "fight" for the security of the country when required.It is the GOI/MOD that is similarly "duty bound" to provide the armed forces with the equipment and ammo for the same.Right now it is the duty of the GOI/MOD to crack heads within the IAF and get the depleting sqd. strength which is like a N-reactor in meltdown phase ,equipped with a few hundred of cost-effective fighters which will replace the 200+ MIGs retiring in the next few years. The critical period is from now until 2020.LCA production and the definitive MK-2,which the IAF wants over the underperforming MK-1,will only arrive in series production from 2020 onwards.Therefore there is no alternative but to order "more of the same" in service with the IAF as the most cost-effective solution ,making acquisition.,support and spares,training,weaponry,etc. the easiest to induct and operate.

Had we a fleet of US aircraft,like F-16s or F-18s we should've added to their strength just as OZ is the doing with its own SHs.However,the backbone of the IAF are the Russian birds,MKIs and MIG-29s and Bisons.We have just 40+ Mirage-2000s.Bisons are ultimate and final avatar of the venerable MIG-21,a great-great-grand-daddy of fighters today,not in production and belonging to the 50s/60s era. It is a miracle how India and the IAF have kept this bird in service besting even F-15s a few years ago! This is the simplest solution.Whatever LCAs can be built in the next 5 years,even if somehow a magical ramped up production takes place,the holy grail is a 45 strength sqd. to deal with the Sino-Pak JV. The latest Chinese agro in Ladakh coming just after its brazen and crude display of its massive mil-expansion in its bogus "victory" over Japan (it never ever defeated the Japanese,they just left China after surrendering to the Allies),must remind one of the ever-growing Chinese delusion that they can lord it all over Asia and India and can "teach us a lesson" anytime.

Even if the approx. 40 Rafales arrive by 2020 and another sqd. or two of stealth fighters,FGFAs,whatever,the IAF needs a solid backbone of large numbers of one or two types.Our Flankers are the best in the world and in Super-Sukhoi avatar will continue to maintain our qualitative margin over the PLAAF once equipped with LR AAMs and BMos. For the PAF upgraded MIG-29s/35s ,M-2Ks,etc.,are good enough along with a lesser number of MKIs to send the Pakis "packing",pardon the pun! However,it is here also that we need large numbers to deal with the joint threat. Hence the simplest solution which will avoid the need for inducting a new aircraft. The IAF can still have their Rafales and "more of the same",by refusing to budge on the price and hinting that alternatives are readily available.The Nov. visit by Mr.Modi to Russia and an announcement of orders of "extras" of whatever type,will send the message home to the French. In fact it could also work with Russia too,extracting a v.reasonable price for "extras" for ordering lesser Rafales.

deejay I found that post deeply offensive and profoundly ignorant. I have stopped responding directly to such shameful nonsense. Self examination cannot remove ignorance covered by the excuse of well meaning patriotism and the play acting of weeping for the nation.

Kumar Vinod wrote:A Top american Aircraft Designer :A Mig 21 Of 1950 Can Kill F 35 in Dog Fight.Reason : large Cross Section and small wings.

“The Su-30MK is simply another modification of the Su-27, a not-very-high-performing Russian imitation of our F-15 that had its prototype flight in 1977. The new version is significantly heavier and has poorer dogfight acceleration and turn than the original, mainly because of all the weighty and draggy gadgetry (e.g., canards, vectored thrust nozzles) added to allow these spectacular maneuvers.

The more of these turkeys the Russkies sell, the longer the now-ancient F-16 (designed in 1972) will reign supreme as the world’s best fighter. And the less reason we will have to buy F-22s at $355 million each.”

The same 'top American aircraft designer' (who sells stereo equipment today) said it, so it must be right.

lol may be but i have sevral reports naming f 35 a costly turkey not a AC at all . but as we all know small wings will reduce its dogfight capability !!! plus one more things he points out LOW FREQUENCY LONG RANGE RADARS CAN TRACK Stealth and russia is creating Them Since The cold war !! don't know till yet !! but even if we say like a stealth aircraft can be detcted of firing of a missile.plus its possible to see that visually . and the advancement in radar tech !! who knows stealth can become useless anytime!!

Well F35, the countries commited are already backing up and saying no the white elephant Ex. Canada , still Its costliest toy in the market !! My Cash Is on SU 35. to be best AC at the cost we can manage!!

Kumar Vinod wrote:lol may be but i have sevral reports naming f 35 a costly turkey not a AC at all .

You'll need to do better than quote 'several reports' to creat a viable argument. The whole point of a stealth aircraft is to engage unseen. With respect to unavoidable WVR engagements - kindly read up on the EO-DAS.

lus one more things he points out LOW FREQUENCY LONG RANGE RADARS CAN TRACK Stealth and russia is creating Them Since The cold war !! don't know till yet !! but even if we say like a stealth aircraft can be detcted of firing of a missile.plus its possible to see that visually . and the advancement in radar tech !! who knows stealth can become useless anytime!!

In that case, the PAK FA and J-20/31 will probably be scrapped any day now.

Well F35, the countries commited are already backing up and saying no the white elephant Ex. Canada , still Its costliest toy in the market !!

Bipartisan support is absent but the RCAF commitment hasn't wavered in the least. The Rafale OTOH doesn't have a hope in Canada. And aside from Canada that has merely deferred a purchase to after 2020, nobody has backed away. The program has meanwhile added three new non-consortium members: Israel, Japan & South Korea.

We crossed the technical aspects of MMRCA selection at least a decade ago. All that is left now is egos, political posturing and institutional stubbornness.

Imagine what IAF can achieve if it takes the leadership role on LCA... At the end of the day Indian Military must own the MIC leadership, not political class.

I would love to see the IAF take the lead - but can it? Will the "forces" which control decision making in India be willing to allow a military arm to be in effective control or leading MIC related efforts?

^^^"I would love to see the IAF take the lead - but can it? Will the "forces" which control decision making in India be willing to allow a military arm to be in effective control or leading MIC related efforts?"

Not a chance. Not just the IAF—any service. The MoD babus are there to make sure there is no direct access to PMO or the DM. They get the services to fight with each other to make the job easier.

On a related note, which other nuke power has made it impossible for the military to know their own nuke capabilities?

Such is the fear of 'coup' that is instilled in the IAS types. Remember the 'unauthorized' army maneuvers after the Nirbhaya incident?

To be honest, I don't understand why the GoI and the IAF are still wanting the Rafale. Dassault totally fleeced India in the M2K update. Rafale was declared L1 and winner over Typhoon based on lower assumed lifecycle costs. (Dassault later added items previously not included, making the decision at least questionable)

Additionally, why was an aircraft selected, which has no chance at all to get delivered in a somewhat acceptable timeframe ? Only Eurofighter and Boeing have the capacity to stop the dwindling numbers.

Then there is even an in-house solution available. Maybe it's not a top performer, but it is cheap and can be produced locally.

The only explanation I've got is that the Rafale is planned as nuke carrier.